The right question.

[TVTyrant]

Oh no, we can't use a different word because one already has an accepted definition, regardless of its origin. It would be like saying it was bigotry to put a potato in a different group because it doesn't fall under the definition of a fruit.

Its not a fruit and never was. Its a root, you dumb idiot.

[Bobblehob]

key word: civil union. As in it should all be defined that way. BTW, I have never seen the words "one" in the definition of marriage. Usually its "men and women", which is about as ambiguous as you can get.

To be honest, I have never seen it defined as anything but 1 man and 1 woman.

This is the dictionary.com definition:

1. a.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

[Bobblehob]

Its not a fruit and never was. Its a root, you dumb idiot.

That was the point I was trying to make xP

[annihilation]

potatoes are stems

[rossmum]

That was the point I was trying to make xP

and yet it's still a stupid fucking point, because a tuber and a fruit are demonstrably different and have a singular, factual definition. the definition of marriage depends entirely on culture, time period, religious observances or lack thereof, and your own personal beliefs. marriage in itself is not some unchanging, unshakeable institution that remains constant wherever you go.

[TVTyrant]

and yet it's still a stupid fucking point, because a tuber and a fruit are demonstrably different and have a singular, factual definition. the definition of marriage depends entirely on culture, time period, religious observances or lack thereof, and your own personal beliefs. marriage in itself is not some unchanging, unshakeable institution that remains constant wherever you go.

bingo.

[Bobblehob]

This issue here is the one specific definition in one specific country, where there is one single factual definition of what marriage is, regardless of personal opinion. If it were a law that covers every single country and culture it would be different.

[rossmum]

lol there is no such thing as a factual definition of marriage, just stop

[Guardian]

Well this is interesting, I personally do not have a problem with gay marriage and don't really care for it.

But I'm finding it interesting reading this argument.

Rossmum, yes Bobblehob could possibly be considered a bigot, but his original post was a personal opinion which gave his reasons why in a level headed manor.

You however, have been completely tearing him apart from the very start. Sure his reasons may seem shallow to some but valid to others. But you have been completely against him and all others who have any form of opinion otherwise to gay marriage saying that "because anyone who is against gay marriage is a giant self-centred bigoted piece of shit". Which according to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot , this is making you just as much of bigot, if not more than a bigot than Bobblehob.

Some people may have very valid reasons for going against gay marriage, I have heard many arguments about the fact that having gay couples adopt children could potentially screw with the child's mental development. I do not know what science says about this, like I said I am not really phased on this topic. Personally I think that all people should be able to express their love for each other no matter what sex or orientation. Many people have a problem with it being classified as a marriage and I think that Bobblehob has come up with a potential solution for the problem, from his point of view. Others might have different solutions which may be more appealing to a different culture.

I'm sure that there will be many gay couple who would be happy to have a recognized title which symbolizes their relationship even if it isn't "Married", but then there will be others who wont. There will always, always be people who have a different opinions and different reasons for agreeing and disagreeing with this topic, some may be shallow, some maybe well thought out, and some maybe extremely personal. But which ever way they approach this topic I don't think that they should be instantly labeled a "giant self-centred bigoted piece of shit". Anyone who has a differing opinion which they are willing to stand for could be labeled a bigot really, even me for writing this.

[TVTyrant]

This issue here is the one specific definition in one specific country, where there is one single factual definition of what marriage is, regardless of personal opinion. If it were a law that covers every single country and culture it would be different.

Yes, so 16 year old kids who have nothing to provide their families should get married, while people who have college educations and have done everything right don't deserve the same rights as other people.
While we're at it, we should repeal Brown v. Board of Education because obviously the niggers were separate but equal.